Decillion:CygnusDarius: czetie: Hey, give it a chance. It worked for Indiana Jones.

But that's because it's Indiana Jones, it doesn't work on Die Hard.

What does that even mean? What is it about Jones that makes him better to have family members around than McClane?

To be fair, the Indiana Jones franchise already had a father-son duo movie, so having another (where Indy plays the father) makes sense. Was it any good? Of course not, but at least there was a reason for it.

scottydoesntknow:To be fair, the Indiana Jones franchise already had a father-son duo movie, so having another (where Indy plays the father) makes sense. Was it any good? Of course not, but at least there was a reason for it.

Out of all the things wrong with Crystal Skull, Shia LaBeouf and "Mutt" were very minor. If you removed most of the other stuff wrong with the movie (the Russians, the ant scene, the killer monkey things in the jungle, the terrible use of blue screens, etc), I think most people wouldn't complain about him. But since the movie as a whold had major problems, it causes people to find additional things in the film to complain about through an amplification effect.

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman:Out of all the things wrong with Crystal Skull, Shia LaBeouf and "Mutt" were very minor. If you removed most of the other stuff wrong with the movie (the Russians, the ant scene, the killer monkey things in the jungle, the terrible use of blue screens, etc), I think most people wouldn't complain about him. But since the movie as a whold had major problems, it causes people to find additional things in the film to complain about through an amplification effect.

It's the opposite for me. I can deal with the rest of it (silly, but no more silly than some of the scenes in the originals), but I really farking hate Shia. I don't know why, he just has a really punchable face and no acting skills whatsoever, but argh.

fusillade762:Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: If you removed most of the other stuff wrong with the movie (the Russians, the ant scene, the killer monkey things in the jungle, the terrible use of blue screens, etc)

Of all the things in the movie that was the one that made me REALLY go "WTF???" Even more than the fridge nuke.

Same here, I enjoyed the Fridge nuke in the same spirit as half the rest of the Indiana Jones series (He wouldn't survive being dragged by a truck, hanging on to a sub for a week or so even if it didnt submerge or jumping out of a plane with a raft either) and it was a great way to place the films time period. but the CGI ants just looked fake as hell and Shia swinging with the monkeys looked both fake and unrealistic physically

Digitalstrange:Same here, I enjoyed the Fridge nuke in the same spirit as half the rest of the Indiana Jones series (He wouldn't survive being dragged by a truck, hanging on to a sub for a week or so even if it didnt submerge or jumping out of a plane with a raft either) and it was a great way to place the films time period.

It makes me laugh when people bring up the nuked fridge as the main problem with Crystal Skull. Nothing about that first setpiece riff was any less ridiculous than the opening scenes in the other Indy movies, but people get all butthurt about it. I thought it was brilliant, in the same spirit as the giant rock or parachuting out of a plane in a rubber raft.

The ants, the monkeys, the giant jungle-sawing personnel carriers--those were a bit silly. But the nuked fridge was funny.